Note: You are not logged into the forums. You will need to log in to post.-- If you do not have an account with us, you will first need to register (click here) before you can log in.-- If you already have an account, just click a "What's New?" button, and you will be prompted to log in.-- If you have any questions or need help, please click the various Help and FAQ links above and in the site header to learn more.

Another way to read that is, there will be more realignment in two years.

I assume it is because they want to get through 1 complete home-home rotation before instituting changes. Even though next should be the completion of the rotation that started this year, it would appear that the ACC may be using next year as the new starting point for the cycle rotation.

The conferences with 14 teams need to get through all their current changes before taking on more changes. So basically I think your assumption is correct. These schools and ND have enough scheduling changes for the time being. I also think they want to give the new playoff format a couple of years to work through any unexpected kinks. I for one see three neutral site games starting with the conference championship to be quite a challenge. The NFL has one neutral site game, the MLB zero, the NBA zero, the NHL zero and as passionate as college football fans are they still have a limit to how much money they can spend. Empty seats don't make nearly as compelling TV as a sold out stadiums.

Originally Posted by VTHokie2000

I assume it is because they want to get through 1 complete home-home rotation before instituting changes. Even though next should be the completion of the rotation that started this year, it would appear that the ACC may be using next year as the new starting point for the cycle rotation.

The conferences with 14 teams need to get through all their current changes before taking on more changes. So basically I think your assumption is correct. These schools and ND have enough scheduling changes for the time being. I also think they want to give the new playoff format a couple of years to work through any unexpected kinks. I for one see three neutral site games starting with the conference championship to be quite a challenge. The NFL has one neutral site game, the MLB zero, the NBA zero, the NHL zero and as passionate as college football fans are they still have a limit to how much money they can spend. Empty seats don't make nearly as compelling TV as a sold out stadiums.

This is a huge factor that gets lost in conversation. The major TV players will have a lot to say about neutral site games at some point when the viewers begin to stop tuning in to these games with no spectators.

The major TV players will also have something to say about all these "exhibition games" the major colleges play (i.e. FSU vs. Troy). Some weeks TV struggles to find enough half decent games to fill their time slots.

This is a huge factor that gets lost in conversation. The major TV players will have a lot to say about neutral site games at some point when the viewers begin to stop tuning in to these games with no spectators.

The major TV players will also have something to say about all these "exhibition games" the major colleges play (i.e. FSU vs. Troy). Some weeks TV struggles to find enough half decent games to fill their time slots.

WRT the potential empty seats for the playoffs, there is 1 way that everyone involved with it can help perpetuate the neutral site format and that is for the committee to always select 4 schools that will have no trouble selling out their allotment for both games. Given that the percentage of people who will be able to attend both games will probably be small, the school will have to have the mindset that they are selling their allotment as essentially a single game instead of a package deal. For example if a schools is allotted 15,000 tickets to both games, then they have to sell their allotment to 30,000 single game customers. Instead of selling their allotment of tickets as 20,000 single game customers and 10,000 double game customers. Schools that are perceived of having a higher percentage of its fan base attend both games in order for the games to be soldout may have a tougher time being selected for the playoffs. I say that because a larger financial burden will be placed on the fan base for attending both games than attending only 1 game. You can assume that the airline and hotel industries will try to get the most money they can from the attendees.

At some point a school with a perceived smaller fan base will be left out of the playoffs even though the public though the school was deserving of a playoff spot. As a result of that controversy, it will bring about some sort of change that places a requirement on the committee when selecting the playoff participants (i.e. Power 5 conference champions receive automatic bid to the Playoffs). Depending on that change, I believe it may limit the influence the media has on the committee and could force the Playoffs to shift to the higher seed's stadium. Also, I believe around that time will signal the death of the bowl games unless the change coincides with creation of a third DI subdivision and the non-Power 5 conferences decide to keep the bowl system.

What choice do we really have if the dominoes start falling? Word is that the Big 12 is very strongly considering UCF. Once a single team moves, chaos will break out again. The ACC isn't exactly keen on UConn or Cincinnati, but if there is a chance they'll lose both to the B1G and Big 12 respectively, and literally be left with 15 (once ND joins fully), wouldn't the ACC try to take one proactively?